The Fleecing of Millennials • Hacker News Board

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#91

Post by normal_man » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #75

diogenescynic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have always been people with bad personal finance. The difference is that the necessities that you cannot avoid all cost orders of magnitude more—-healthcare, housing, college, childcare. This means people how a smaller margin for mistakes and even one hospital trip can put them in debt for years/decades or bankruptcy.

The rules have changed and people are still trying to live like their parents did. Healthcare is expensive. If you are on Obamacare, it is subsidized. Housing is expensive if you want to live in a "good" neighborhood. There are a lot of "okay" neighborhoods that people can afford just fine. College is expensive, but it really depends on which university you go to. As much as anything, the college issue is intentional…

Instead of just going "welp, this is how things are now", there is always the option to change the rules back. How about we go back to 90% taxes on the top brackets and see how millennials fare then?

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#92

Post by war1025 » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #82

war1025 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules have changed and people are still trying to live like their parents did. Healthcare is expensive. If you are on Obamacare, it is subsidized. Housing is expensive if you want to live in a "good" neighborhood. There are a lot of "okay" neighborhoods that people can afford just fine. College is expensive, but it really depends on which university you go to. As much as anything, the college issue is intentional…

One parent not working has massive negative externalities for everyone. For society the labour force shrinks and the economy follows. Your wife's career is effectively over after 5-10 years off for childcare. If you lose your job your family will be in trouble. If you get divorced you will not enjoy the results.

Two parents working has negative externalities as well. Costs adjust to what families can bear. Double incomes means increased prices and reduced purchasing power for everyone.

My wife's career never started. Her degree was worthless so she was working as a barista before we had kids. She does some work on the side, but she was never going to generate the kind of income I do solely based on our respective career choices.

If I lose my job, we can live off savings for several years. If I am unable to find work, the economy has bigger problems that are independent of my wife working or not. If I die or become disabled, that's what insurance is for.

No one enjoys divorce. In some cases it is a necessary evil, but I don't think anyone would ever characterize it as pleasant.

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#93

Post by war1025 » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

normal_man wrote: post #91

war1025 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules have changed and people are still trying to live like their parents did. Healthcare is expensive. If you are on Obamacare, it is subsidized. Housing is expensive if you want to live in a "good" neighborhood. There are a lot of "okay" neighborhoods that people can afford just fine. College is expensive, but it really depends on which university you go to. As much as anything, the college issue is intentional…

Instead of just going "welp, this is how things are now", there is always the option to change the rules back. How about we go back to 90% taxes on the top brackets and see how millennials fare then?

The rich don't make their money off of taxable income. They make their money off of appreciating assets. You can tax them all you want and it won't change a thing. You could try to create a wealth tax, but basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution.

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#94

Post by kpwagner » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

drewmate wrote: post #57

kpwagner wrote: post #24

Federal debt and surface temperature charts are telling because they include 20+ year projections periods--and of course those projections are dire (and bullshit). It's clear the story this "opinion columnist" (bullshit artist) is trying to craft. To me, net worth by age group is the troubling chart. If I read this correctly, median net worth for all age groups under 44 years old is significantly negative. The scale…

I believe the chart is cumulative change in net worth for people in those age groups. The median net worth for someone under 50 isn't negative, but it's a lot lower than it was 30 years ago. On the other hand, older Americans seem to keep on earning and not retiring which boosts their relative net worth relative to the generation(s) before them.

Yes, I see that now. Not nearly so dire--but still bad.

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#95

Post by kpwagner » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

timerol wrote: post #34

kpwagner wrote: post #24

Federal debt and surface temperature charts are telling because they include 20+ year projections periods--and of course those projections are dire (and bullshit). It's clear the story this "opinion columnist" (bullshit artist) is trying to craft. To me, net worth by age group is the troubling chart. If I read this correctly, median net worth for all age groups under 44 years old is significantly negative. The scale…

Note that a mortgage should not lead to negative net worth in the general case. Because you own a house, a mortgage with 0% down payment should have no immediate effect on your net worth. There are people who are upside-down on their mortgages, but that isn't the common case.

That's true. I misread the chart anyway, so it isn't necessarily saying anything about debt levels.

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#96

Post by normal_man » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #93

normal_man wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of just going "welp, this is how things are now", there is always the option to change the rules back. How about we go back to 90% taxes on the top brackets and see how millennials fare then?

The rich don't make their money off of taxable income. They make their money off of appreciating assets. You can tax them all you want and it won't change a thing. You could try to create a wealth tax, but basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution.

>basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution.

Now you're getting it.

Also, the "wealth tax" exists, it's called the capital gains tax, and it only goes up to 20%. It should be 100%.

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#97

Post by hoaw » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #90

hoaw wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also one of the best examples of what you lose in this changing society though. The decline of the middle class in general is of course problematic, but at least some of these jobs weren't worth saving as activities (though probably as careers). However that you can't have sustainable career as a common nurse, teacher or construction worker is a huge problem. Because these professions can't necessarily be paid a lot…

Geriatric may be one of the worst paid of the nursing professions, but nursing itself has seen its salaries increase dramatically. Partially due to demand, partially due to increasing responsibilities, and partially due to the equal pay for equal work movement. I know nurses who make well into 6 figures. That's because they work way more than 40 hours / week, with much of that night shift, but even without it's not t…

I hope you are correct. Point still stands that professions like nursing to some extent have an inverse relationship between utility and cost. Everyone can't be a nurses with specialist education, a teachers at private school or a construction worker building luxury apartment buildings. If people do not want to pay more, and probably also lose more in transit, I think it is crucial that you can live a good life at low costs in those professions. Otherwise no one is going be left to care for the weak, tech the poor or build housing for the middle class. At least not with good results.

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#98

Post by mschuster91 » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #10

mschuster91 wrote: post #3

> Medicare and Social Security have been spared from cuts. Programs that benefit younger workers and families have not. This is a political incentive problem. Retired people tend to have free time to engage in politics (or at least watch TV all day and get fed "news") and they turn out to votes in droves (as they don't have to e.g. take a day off to vote!), while young people mainly have the power to pull off a shits…

While I agree that older people tend to vote in greater numbers, the excuse that they do so because they have more free time is just that, an excuse. Early voting and absentee ballots render that excuse irrelevant, regardless of the number of jobs worked. EDIT: Thanks for educating me regarding some states not offering those options. Although, in those states, I would think most employers would make it easier for the…

> While I agree that older people tend to vote in greater numbers, the excuse that they do so because they have more free time is just that, an excuse.

I didn't pin just voting on "less free time" but also political engagement aside from consuming social media posts. Meaningful engagement with politics takes a lot of time and energy.

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#99

Post by war1025 » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

normal_man wrote: post #96

war1025 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rich don't make their money off of taxable income. They make their money off of appreciating assets. You can tax them all you want and it won't change a thing. You could try to create a wealth tax, but basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution.

>basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution. Now you're getting it. Also, the "wealth tax" exists, it's called the capital gains tax, and it only goes up to 20%. It should be 100%.

The majority of my net worth is tied up in appreciating assets. I would be on the side of those fighting to keep that from happening.

Re: The Fleecing of Millennials

#100

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #99

normal_man wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>basically anyone with any assets would fight it tooth and nail and it would never go through without something akin to a communist revolution. Now you're getting it. Also, the "wealth tax" exists, it's called the capital gains tax, and it only goes up to 20%. It should be 100%.

The majority of my net worth is tied up in appreciating assets. I would be on the side of those fighting to keep that from happening.

[deleted]